BODY

Trust is regarded as a multifaceted concept that cannot be defined in a single manner. It

is a subject of ongoing discussions in various fields. Consequently, there are diverse definitions
of trust proposed in the literature.

Psychologists view trust as a personal characteristic (Rotter, 1967). Gibb (1978) suggests
that trust is instinctive and similar to love, involving both emotions and rational thinking.
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998, p. 395) define trust as a psychological state wherein
individuals willingly embrace vulnerability based on positive expectations of another's intentions
or behavior. Sako (1992) considers trust as a mindset or expectation held by one partner about
the other, anticipating predictable and mutually agreeable actions or responses. Mayer, Davis,
and Schoorman (1995, p. 712) propose the Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, describing
trust as "the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the
expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective
of the ability to monitor or control that other party." In this definition, trust represents an
intention to take a risk in a relationship. Parkhe (1998) and Dyer and Chu (2000) define trust as
one party's confidence that the other party in an exchange relationship will not exploit its
vulnerabilities Hosmer (1995, p. 390) emphasizes that trust is associated with willing cooperation
rather than forced cooperation and the resulting benefits. In the realm of digital interactions
where physical contact is absent and moral and social pressures can be differently perceived,
trust takes on a distinct form. According to Wang and Jeong (2018, p. 163), digital trust refers to
"general beliefs in online service providers that result in behavioral intentions."

Digital trust is fostered through honest and transparent communication (Demolombe,

2004), while lack of transparency and dishonesty can undermine online trust (Turilli, Vaccaro,
and Taddeo, 2010). Research in the online environment consistently demonstrates the strong
relationship between trust and user acceptance (Mou, Shin, 2018; Shin, 2011), with trust
significantly impacting behavioral outcomes (Shin, 2017). Trusted services contribute to a sense
of ease and reduced need for verifying authenticity and legitimacy (Bianchi, Brockner, 2012). In
online contexts, trust is consistently identified as a crucial factor in risk-related exchanges.

Mattila and Seppälä (2017) propose three elements of digital trust: security (protection
against malware and data abuse), identifiability (confirmation of the parties' true identities), and
traceability (ability to demonstrate and enforce contractual rights if commitments are not
fulfilled).

Trust and digital trust have been defined as a personality trait, the foundation of
relationships, a probabilistic evaluation of trustworthiness, and an attitude. Trust cannot be
compelled; it arises from choice. It is dynamic and can be temporal, evolving over time, but
easily destroyed at any stage of its development. Rebuilding trust is typically challenging.

Development of digital trust

SOCIAL MEDIA

The widespread use of social media has presented numerous opportunities for building
digital trust. Social media platforms have become integral to people's lives, enabling
communication, networking, and content sharing (Paliszkiewicz, Koohang, 2016). This
development has created avenues for fostering interactions and trust between individuals and
businesses.

Research is necessary to explore the use of social media in establishing trust in

companies and products. The increasing utilization of social media offers potential for studying
various aspects and patterns, such as trust development, particularly in the context of business-
stakeholder relationships (Hruska, Maresova, 2020). Effective relationship management through
online communities has become crucial for maintaining trust between businesses and their
stakeholders (Svenson, 2018).

The term "Social Media Analytics" has gained significant attention in academic literature.
It refers to a burgeoning interdisciplinary research field that aims to combine, expand, and adapt
methods for analyzing social media data (Zeng, Chen, Lusch, Li, 2010). This field presents fresh
opportunities for conducting research on digital trust.

MOBILE

Businesses can take advantage of the opportunities presented by smartphones, but

establishing trust is crucial to ensure people feel secure using them. With mobile devices
becoming an integral part of everyday life, individuals rely on them for information
consumption, transactions, and communication. Despite the significance of trust in mobile
commerce, there has been limited academic exploration of the connection between the distinct
interactive components of mobile devices and customer trust, as well as the relationship
between offline, online, and mobile trust (Giovannini, Ferreira, da Silva, Ferreira, 2015).

Understanding the nature of trust and its determinants, particularly in mobile

environments, is vital for gaining a competitive edge and attracting and retaining consumers.
Research should focus on how to transfer trust from existing channels to m-commerce. Stewart
(2003) suggests that consumer trust can be transferred between contexts, potentially
transforming previously established channels into powerful trust-building tools. According to
Giovannini, Ferreira, da Silva, Ferreira (2015), trust significantly influences consumers' attitudes,
intentions, and actual purchasing behavior in mobile commerce, underscoring the need for
further research in this area.

INTERNET OF THINGS

The Internet of Things (IoT) is widely recognized as a significant emerging technology in

the 21st century. According to Gubbi, Buyya, Marusic, and Palaniswami (2013), the IoT refers to
the interconnectedness of devices that can communicate and share information through a
unified framework. However, the IoT faces considerable challenges in terms of security, making
it vulnerable to various cyber-attacks (Falco, Viswanathan, Caldera, Shrobe, 2018).

Establishing trust in the IoT relies heavily on addressing these security issues, as
emphasized by Nord, Koohang, and Paliszkiewicz (2019). The level of operational safety and
security measures implemented in the IoT varies significantly across industries. Therefore, it is
crucial to examine the most effective practices in the business sector and document the
development and maintenance of trust. Additionally, research is needed to explore methods of
fostering trust in IoT technologies within society (Yan, Zhang, Vasilakos, 2014).

ANALYTICS

Researchers highlight the significance of trust in various aspects of data, including its
production, collection, usage, and sharing (Angrist, 2009; Sterckx, Cockbain, Howard, Huys,
Borry, 2013). It is crucial for management to have faith in both the data itself and the analyses
derived from it, as these form the basis for informed business decisions. Big data analytics
involves examining extensive datasets to improve decision-making and enhance predictions by
uncovering patterns and connections within the data.

According to Srinivasan and Swink (2018, p. 3), it refers to an organizational facility

equipped with tools, techniques, and processes that enable data processing, organization,
visualization, and analysis, resulting in valuable insights for data-driven operational planning,
decision-making, and execution. Agarwal and Dhar (2014) argue that big data analytics
empowers organizations to collect and analyze data in order to obtain crucial insights.

Therefore, understanding how the organizational culture of big data analytics capability
can foster trust becomes essential (Dubey, Gunasekaran, Childe, Roubaud, Wamba, Giannakis,
Foropon, 2019). Further research is also required in this domain.
REFERENCE

References
Agarwal, R., and Dhar, V. (2014). “Big data, data science, and analytics: the opportunity and
challenge for IS
research”. Information Systems Research, 25(3): 443–448.
Angrist, M. (2009). “Eyes wide open: the personal genome project, citizen science and veracity in
informed
consent”. Personalized Medicine, 6: 691.
Armour, M. (2007). “Leadership and the Power of Trust. Creating a High-Trust Peak-Performance
Organization”.
Dallas: LifeThemes Press.
Bianchi, E. C., and Brockner, J. (2012). “In the eyes of the beholder?” Organization Behaviour and
Human Decision
Process, 118(1): 46–59.
Bibb S., and Kourdi J. (2004). “Trust Matters for Organizational and Personal Success”, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bracey, H. (2002). “Building Trust. How to Get It! How to Keep It!”. Taylorsville, GA: Hyler Bracey.
Costigan, R. D., Ilter, S. S., and Berman, J. J. (1998). “A multi-dimensional study of trust in
organizations”. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 10: 303–317.
Demolombe, R. (2004). „Reasoning about trust: A formal logic framework”. Berlin: Springer.
Deutsch, M. (1962). “Cooperation and trust: some theoretical notes”. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation, 10,
275–318.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Roubaud, D., Wamba, F., Giannakis, M., and Foropon, C.
(2019). “Big
data analytics and organizational culture as complements to swift trust and collaborative performance in
the humanitarian supply chain”. International Journal of Production Economics, 210: 120-136.
Dunn, J., and Schweitzer, M. (2005). “Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust”.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88: 736–748.
Dyer, J. and Chu, W. (2000). “The Determinants of Trust in Supplier Automaker Relationships in the
U.S., Japan,
Korea”. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2): 285–295
Eikeland, T. B. (2015). “Emergent trust and work life relationships: How to approach the relational
moment of
trust”. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 5(3), 59-77.
Evans, A.M., and Revelle, W. (2008). “Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust”.
Journal of
Research in Personality, 42: 1585–1593.
Everett, C. (2009). „Cloud computing: A question of trust”. Computer Fraud Security, 6:5-7
Falco, G., Viswanathan, A., Caldera, C., and Shrobe, H. (2018). “A master attack methodology for an
AI-based
automated attack planner for smart cities”. IEEE Access 6, 48360–48373. IEEE.
Galford, R. and Drapeau, A. S. (2002). “The Trusted Leader. Bringing Out the Best in Your People
and Your
Company”. New York: Free Press.
Gibb, J. R. (1978). “Trust, a New View of Personal and Organizational Development”. Los Angeles:
Guild of Tutors
Press, International College.
Giovannini, C. J., Ferreira, J. B., da Silva, J. F., and Ferreira, D. B. (2015). “The effects of trust
transference, mobile
attributes and enjoyment on mobile trust.” Brazilian Administration Review, 12(1): 88-108.
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., and Palaniswami. M. (2013). “Internet of Things (IoT): A Vision,
Architectural
Elements, and Future Directions”. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7): 1645-1660.
Habib, S., Hauke, S., Ries, S. and Muhlhauser, M. (2012). “Trust as a facilitator in cloud computing: a
survey”.
Journal of Cloud Comput Advances, Systems and Applications, 2012, 1(1): 1-19.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). “Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical
ethics”.
Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 379–403.
Hruska, J., and Maresova, P. (2020). “Use of social media platforms among adults in the united States—
Behavior
on social media”. Societies, 10(1): 27